WelcomeTo My World

Friday, 28 August 2015

Murder on the IDS Express.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ― Voltaire
#democracy, #justice, #kanjintor, #mikesevier, #whiteroseclub
Sam Wallander's tracks

Wrongly Convicted Colorado Springs Man and His
Family Disappointed at the Response of the El Paso County DA Dan May
Regarding His Petition to Receive Compensation for a Seven Year Wrongful
Incarceration

DENVER, CO--(Marketwired - August 27, 2015) - June
2013 marked the month and year that Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
signed a bill into law which compensates those who have been exonerated
after a wrongful conviction.

The first man to benefit from the
new law was Robert Dewey. Dewey spent 16 years in prison before being
freed in 2012 after new DNA evidence exonerated him of the 1994 murder
and sexual assault of a Palisade woman. The new evidence led to the
arrest of another man with no connection to Dewey. (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22742847/)
"This
bill recognizes that there are injustices in our justice system and
that your civil rights can be wronged," said Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver,
bill co-sponsor. This bill, sponsored by Colorado State Senator Lucia
Guzman, D-Denver, creates a program that provides $70,000 for each year
incarcerated, plus an additional $25,000 for each year he or she served
on parole and $50,000 for each year he or she was incarcerated and
awaited execution. It also provides tuition waivers at state colleges if
the person served at least three years in prison (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22742847/).
The
case of Lamont Banks is another wrongful conviction story in the state
of Colorado for which petition for compensation is sought. Banks was
convicted in 2005 of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position
of trust and sexual exploitation of a child. According to court
documents, on appeal, the court of appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
The court held that the prosecutor's improper questioning of Banks
affected his substantial rights and undermined the fundamental fairness
of the trial. The case was remanded for a new trial. According to court
records, the new trial resulted in a conviction of sexual exploitation
of a child (People v Banks, No 07CA0082, Aug. 4, 2011). On appeal of the
follow up trial, the court of appeals Vacated the Conviction and Sentence
(13CA1321 Peo v Banks 05-07-2015, Court of Appeals No. 13CA1321, El
Paso County District Court No. 05CR3016, Honorable David A. Gilbert,
Judge).
In the Banks case, an excerpt from the court of appeals
order reads, "Because there was insufficient evidence on which a jury
could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Banks knowingly possessed or
controlled the video, Banks' conviction for sexual exploitation of a
child cannot stand." The Conclusion of the Order reads, "The judgment of
conviction and sentence are vacated," (13CA1321 Peo v
Banks 05-07-2015, Court of Appeals No. 13CA1321, El Paso County District
Court No. 05CR3016, Honorable David A. Gilbert, Judge).
FindLaw.com
states, "In general, to vacate a conviction means to set aside the
verdict. In other words, it will appear as if the first trial and
conviction never happened," (http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/01/how-do-you-get-a-conviction-vacated.html).
Court
records show that Banks subsequently filed a petition for restitution
in accordance with Colorado statutes 13-65-101 and 13-65-102, which
provides $70,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration. El Paso County
(Colorado) District Attorney Dan May joined in with Colorado Attorney
General Cynthia Hoffman in filing a motion to dismiss Banks' petition on
the grounds that the conditions of 13-65-101 had not been met (Case No.
15CV031588, District Court, El Paso County, Colorado).
"The
bottom line is that I was the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice,"
exclaims Banks. "I was found 'Not Guilty' by a jury of 12 people in my
new trial, where the evidence was so strong I didn't even have to take
the stand in my own defense," asserts Banks.
"By
definition,'vacate', means there is no conviction in the case brought
against me by Donna Billek and the DA's office. The jury of 12 declared
me 'Not Guilty'. If that's not actual innocence, I don't know what is in
this country," says Banks. "For all practical purposes, the
Constitution protects me as 'innocent until proven guilty'. When the
Court of Appeals vacated my conviction and sentence, it placed me in a
category of 'actual innocence'... as if the conviction never happened,"
declares Banks.
The verbiage in the Appeals Order clearly vacates
the conviction and sentencing of Lamont Banks, the fact that El Paso
County DA Dan May and Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Hoffman move to
dismiss his petition for restitution on the Colorado law extended to the
wrongly convicted for the time they have served is unconscionable.
"I
am deeply hurt by the actions of DA Dan May," explains Rose Banks,
mother of Lamont Banks and Pastor of the Colorado Springs Fellowship
Church. "I have worked with DA May on the 'Let's Talk Community Forum'
that we sponsored through our church. The 'Let's Talk Community Forum'
was a unique opportunity for our church, which is predominantly African
American, to reach out to the law enforcement officers in our community
amidst the angst that had gripped our nation with police departments and
violent confrontations with African American communities that sparked
protests. Our goal with 'Let's Talk' was to provide a forum of open
dialogue and break down barriers between law enforcement and our
community. In addition, our church sponsored breakfast and lunch for the
officers in the community on at least three occasions to express thanks
and gratitude for the sacrifices they make to keep our community safe,"
adds Pastor Banks. Pastor Banks was personally invited by DA May to
keynote his quarterly meeting, speaking to over 80 attorneys in his
charge.
Ahead of this meeting, Pastor Banks sat down with DA May,
the Colorado Springs Chief of Police and a representative from the El
Paso County Sheriff's Office in a private meeting to share what her
family had gone through as a result of the justice system. "I have three
children that have been wrongly convicted, whose lives have been
devastated by the system. I wanted to give DA May, the Chief, and the
Sheriff Department representative first-hand knowledge of the wrongful
convictions in advance of our 'Let's Talk Community Forums' and provide
full disclosure to DA May, who had invited me to speak to his
attorneys," explains Pastor Banks. "I was very candid with DA May, who
had personally invited me to speak, as I was unsure if he would still
want me to speak after knowing the information about my family's
negative experiences with the legal system," add Pastor Banks. DA May
assured Pastor Banks that he had no concerns and, in fact, gave her
license to discuss the cases and any other topics of her choosing for
the June 2015 forum with his attorneys.
"DA May seemed open to
his attorneys hearing the different wrongful conviction stories my
family had experienced in the raw and I wanted to be sure I left every
attorney present with a message they would never forget... to make 100%
sure, without a doubt, that the people they lock up are guilty. I also
wanted them to see the pain and aftermath of wrongful convictions, how
the extended families are impacted, how life is just never the same
after this happens," declares Pastor Banks.

"DA
May knew the facts of my son, Lamont's, wrongful conviction first hand
and volunteered to look into his case during the private meeting with
the Chief and Sheriff Department representatives. I am greatly
disappointed that he would deny Lamont the restitution owed to him, by
law, in the state of Colorado for the time that was wrongly taken from
him. It is time he will never get back," Pastor Banks lamented. "In no
way do I expect favors or preferential treatment, but the facts in
Lamont's case are very clear. DA May knew that one of his deputies
committed misconduct and Lamont was granted a new trial which vacated
his conviction and sentence of eight years to life," notes Pastor Banks.

This ruling was enough to release Lamont from prison, but the
State of Colorado is arguing baseless technicalities to withhold
restitution. "As a mother, it saddens me to see all that my son has lost
and how the State won't hold to their own laws to right the wrong
against him. No restitution can repay the time he has lost, the horrible
things he experienced in prison, or the resultant health problems, but
it's the very least the State can do to help Lamont get back on his
feet," says Pastor Banks. "DA May's denial seems so beneath the man I
have come to know and worked with in the community," concludes Pastor
Banks.
Lamont's petition was "barred because those convictions
were reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct, which is a legal error
unrelated to Petitioner's actual innocence" (Case No. 15CV031588,
District Court, El Paso County, Colorado). According to USLegal.com,
"prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or
ethical standards of law practice" (http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-misconduct).
"This begs the question: Why is the DAs office prosecuting people who
haven't done anything wrong, but failing to prosecute its own attorneys,
like Donna Billek, who commit prosecutorial misconduct in Lamont's
case? He was punished for something he did not do, yet Attorney Donna
Billek, in the DA's office, who wrongly prosecuted him, was never
punished. In fact, she was promoted in the ranks of the DA's office, in
spite of her misconduct," exclaims Lynette Campbell, A Just Cause.
"At
the time of questioning, the alleged victim, who is now 19 and has
since recanted her accusations, stated that she felt threatened and
intimidated at the age of 8 with Donna Billek's words. Attorney Billek
told the girl during questioning that she was not telling her what she
wanted to hear," says Lamont Banks.
"My heart aches when I see the
injustice and inequities in the justice system. I understand the anger
and outrage across the nation. It's due to the injustice, which must be
fixed so lives are continually destroyed. How many people is Attorney
Donna Billek going to put away using the same crooked methods? If she
did it to my son without any consequences, she has free reign to inflict
pain in the lives of others. The DA's office needs to be held
accountable," says Pastor Banks.

"I
find myself at times crawling on the floor in excruciating pain due to
degenerative disks in my back as a result of prison sleeping conditions
during my wrongful incarceration. Two months after being found not
guilty, I was in the battle of my life in ICU for 6 days, fighting for
my life and not expected to live with a blood glucose level of 1500. I
should have died from a diabetic coma. The horrible diet and non-caring
attitude of the medical people who worked in prison caused me to develop
Type 2 diabetes in addition to my degenerated disks in my back. I am a
casualty of corruption, a wrongful conviction, and prosecutorial
misconduct. It is not only the time I spent in prison, but the effects
of wrongful conviction will haunt me for the rest of my life. I am only
seeking the restitution allowed under the law," concludes Lamont Banks.

"Do
feel that I should receive restitution for seven years of my life being
taken away? ...Absolutely!" exclaims Banks. "I have been fortunate that
I have the support of friends and family, but that still doesn't
dismiss the obligation of the State of Colorado for the wrong that was
done to me," Banks adds.

"I
have to agree with what Robert Dewey said during an interview when he
stated, 'He was not pointing fingers or blaming anyone, he was just
trying to move on with his life. I'm thankful that Dewey will be
compensated. As for me, I will continue to fight for restitution.
Because of what happened to me and the injustice I saw first-hand, I'll
spend the rest of my life, until my dying breath, fighting for others
who have been done wrong by a crooked justice system," Banks concluded.

Legal Professionals Agree That There Was No Probable Cause to Investigate and Prosecute the IRP6

DENVER, CO--(Marketwired - August 26, 2015) - Justice advocacy group, A Just Cause, continues to seek intervention from the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 2011 wrongful conviction of six IT executives known as the IRP6.
The
IRP6 case concerns a Colorado-based company (IRP Solutions Corporation)
that developed the Case Investigative Life Cycle (CILC) criminal
investigations software for federal, state, and local law enforcement.
The business was raided in February 2005 based on accusations of
wrongdoing. A Just Cause argues that the IRP6 (Kendrick Barnes, Gary L
Walker, Demetrius K. Harper, Clinton A Stewart, David A Zirpolo and
David A Banks) were wrongly convicted in 2011 after being accused of
mail and wire fraud. (D. Ct. No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
"A Just Cause
has been fighting for the IRP6 for over 3 years seeking their
exoneration," says Sam Thurman, A Just Cause. "As one considers the
evidence and how the case unfolded, everything points to a wrongful
conviction."
"As A Just Cause reviews the analysis and comments
made by multiple legal professionals who have reviewed the IRP6 case,
the end result is the same; the IRP6 are six executives who should not
be in prison," says Lamont Banks, A Just Cause Executive Director. "We
have had folks review this case from front to back including the search
warrant, discovery, the theory of the prosecution, and the court
proceedings. Everyone comes to the same conclusion -- this should have
never happened," adds Banks.
"When you look at the IRP6 case the
question of 'probable cause' and 'intent' comes into play," asserts
Thurman. "First and foremost, there was no probable cause for the FBI to
raid the offices of IRP Solutions back in 2005," Thurman adds.
Court
records show that FBI Special Agent John W. Smith obtained an Affidavit
for Search Warrant and Seizure on February 7, 2005 stating that IRP was
a "purported" software development company and that it was a front set
up to "scam" staffing companies.
"The problem with Agent Smith's
warrant is that it was bogus right from the start," says Cliff Stewart, A
Just Cause. "Court records show where Smith obtained sworn affidavits
from retired federal agents who worked at IRP Solutions as consultants
stating that IRP was a legitimate company, developing viable software
for local state and federal law enforcement agencies. One of the retired
agents was Gary Hillberry, who affirmed that IRP was working on law
enforcement software and that the company had legitimate customers. So
without looking at anything else, for Agent Smith to get Judge Shaffer
to sign off on a warrant when he knew that there was no wrongdoing is in
and of itself a violation of the law and a gross waste of government
resources and taxpayer dollars," concludes Stewart.
"For any
agency to move forward in an investigation or an arrest, there must be
'probable cause,'" argues Thurman. "And the lack of probable cause was
ignored in this case."
Probable cause is a requirement found in
the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an
arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find
probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a
crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the
crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause)
In Illinois v. Gates,
the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a
"practical, non-technical" standard that calls upon the "factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and
prudent men [...] act." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause)
"Taking
the court's view on 'probable cause', 'reasonable and prudent men' can
look at the IRP6 case and see that there was no wrongdoing and the IRP6
should not have been investigated and there should have never been a
trial," says Thurman. "In addition to what the courts and the
constitution say about 'probable cause,' even the FBI supposedly has
strict guidelines for executing warrants and searches, but that didn't
seem to matter in the IRP6 case," adds Thurman.
According to the
FBI, "The FBI's collection authorities are also controlled by the
federal courts. Under the USA PATRIOT Act, a federal judge must still
approve search warrants and wiretaps for counterintelligence and
counterterrorism investigations. Agents must still prove probable cause
in order to obtain a warrant authorizing searches and wiretaps. The FBI
only collects and disseminates intelligence under guidelines designed
specifically to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, and we are
committed to using our authorities and resources responsibly." (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/liberties)
"There
is far too much evidence in the IRP6 case to support their innocence,
so why are they incarcerated?" ponders Banks. "If you examine just a few
points raised by other professionals, it becomes clear that this is a
case of wrongful conviction," concludes Banks.
In January 2005,
Gary Hillberry, a retired thirty-year veteran of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement who was hired to work as an independent contractor
providing subject matter expertise at IRP Solutions, sent FBI Agent John
Smith a letter stating: "We decided that IRP Solutions had a viable law
enforcement product and appeared to be moving forward to acquire state
and federal law enforcement contracts for their product." Court
documents also show that Hillberry and two other retired FBI agents,
John Epke and Dwayne Fuselier, signed independent contractor agreements
to be paid upon the sale of IRP's software. (D. Ct. No.
1:09-CR-00266-CMA).
In 2013, Dr. Alan Bean, Executive Director of
Friends of Justice, conducted a six month investigation into the IRP6
case and after reviewing the allegations and evidence, Bean released a
report titled "Money for Nothing: how racial bias destroyed six lives,
stymied a Black owned business and outraged an entire congregation." In
the report, Bean characterized the government's "contract theory" as
"Bogus," stated that "the government's case can't stand up to scrutiny,"
and said, "the fraud alleged in the federal indictment is a mirage." (https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/free-the-irp6/)
Court
records show that the government empanelled two grand juries to get an
indictment against the IRP6. The 2007 grand jury determined that it was a
corporate debt collection case and that no wrongdoing had occurred.
"The government used a second grand jury when the first grand jury
recognized that debt was not a crime and refused to indict the IRP6,"
affirms Banks. "A highlight of the first grand jury was a question asked
by one of the grand jurors: "But if I don't pay somebody for work
they've done, that's not a federal crime," one grand juror pointed out.
"The government changed the approach, withheld information critical to
determining 'probable cause,' empaneled a second grand jury and got the
indictment," says Banks.
During a January 2014 interview on A Just Cause (AJC) Radio,
staffing industry expert Andrew Albarelle (Principal Executive Officer,
REMY Corporation) shared his expert opinion about the IRP6 case. Court
records show that Mr. Albarelle had nearly 20 years experience in the
staffing industry at the time of the case and had participated in other
government investigations to expose fraud in the staffing industry (Ct.
No. 1:09-CR-00266-CMA, Oct 6, 2011, and Albarelle Letter to U.S.
Attorney John Walsh, July 18, 2011). "There is no difference in what IRP
did (normal business practices) than other companies when it comes to
debt," asserts Albarelle during the January 2014 radio interview. Court
records further show that Mr. Albarelle was not allowed to testify
during the October 2011 trial of the IRP6.
"Although the primary
charge was that the [IRP6] defendants had misrepresented their success
and prospects to certain staffing companies, the case was presented to
the jury on the basis that the software program developed by the
defendants was a phony and a scam," says Judge H. Lee Sarokin,
retired Federal District and Appellate Judge. "The defendants had
formed a software company to develop a program to aid law enforcement in
sharing information. They worked for years on the project, spent their
time and money, entered into a substantial lease, hired former law
enforcement personnel to work on the project, engaged law firms and
travelled the country demonstrating the program to potential customers
such as Homeland Security, the FBI, the N.Y. Police Department, etc. As
interest increased, they engaged staffing companies to provide
programmers. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney [Greg Goldberg] sent a
letter to the current U.S. Attorney claiming that these individuals had
committed fraud -- had lied about their prospects to staffing companies
-- a claim consistently denied. Whom the letter writer represented was
not disclosed," shared Judge Sarokin.
"It is difficult to
reconcile the charge with the time and money devoted to the project by
the [IRP6] defendants and the unanswerable questions: Why would scammers
pick law enforcement as their target?" Judge Sarokin questions, and
"why would they personally guarantee the obligations to staffing
companies? How could they possibly make any money unless the [CILC
software] were a success and contracts obtained? Who pushed so hard for
the indictments?" Judge Sarokin ruminates.
"Another key point to
note is that during the trial the IRP6 impeached several government
witnesses, yet the jury was never instructed by Judge Arguello as to the
meaning of impeachment," argues Stewart. (D. Ct. No.
1:09-CR-00266-CMA). Impeachment may refer to different legal concepts.
One meaning in the law refers to discrediting a witness by showing that
he or she is not telling the truth or does not have a reliable basis for
their testimony. (http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeachment/).
“In addition to the jury not being informed on the ramifications of
witness impeachment, the IRP6 were not allowed to demonstrate for the
jury the unreliable testimony of other government witnesses like Eileen
Bergman who tried to discredit IRP Solutions to NYPD; an attempt that
was unsuccessful by Bergman,” adds Stewart.
Prior to the IRP6
going on trial, IRP Solutions software (Case Investigative Lifecycle
software) was reviewed/examined by Don Vilfer of Califorensics in 2010.
Califorensics is a computer forensics firm. Mr. Vilfer is retired FBI,
Supervisory Special Agent for the White Collar Crime and Computer Crime
Squad. Mr. Vilfer is also a Certified Fraud Examiner and an Attorney.
Califorensics reported: "The CILC software did not appear to be
'vaporware' but included a large amount of complex coding that would
have required significant development (software development). The CILC
software was functional at the time of the search warrant (making
reference to the February 2005 raid on the IRP Solutions offices). The
software contained many notable features, making it a functional product
for the intended consumer. There is a market for the functionality that
CILC software offers and it (CILC) would undoubtedly be of interest to
many law enforcement agencies."
"Countless professionals have
looked at the IRP software and spoke of its functionality and viability
to law enforcement," says Thurman. "Others have viewed the IRP6 case and
are amazed at how this case got this far. And then there were numerous
articles in professional law enforcement trade publications that spoke
highly of IRP and the Case Investigative Lifecycle software (CILC).
Business engagements by IRP executives included, but are not limited to
the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (FICMS Program), The
Federal BOP, Rocky Mountain HIDTA, DOJ Chief Information Officer Van
Hitch, Colorado Bureau of Investigation (Agent Colin Reese),
Philadelphia PD/Office of Inspector General, Royal Bahamas Police Force
(Commissioner Ellison Edroy Greenslade), National Police of Colombia
(Major Monica Briceno), Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (now retired
Commander of Police Reserves, Lyle Alexander) and many other small,
medium and large agencies. The list of publications and references
includes, but is not limited to Law Enforcement Technology Magazine,
Police Magazine, Criminal Investigation textbook by Bennett and Hess,
letter of reference by Colorado Springs former City Manager Lorne
Kramer, letter of reference by Canon City Chief of Police Daniel Shull,
reference by former NYPD Officer and part of technology team John
Shannon and the IRP executives met with lawmakers like former Senator
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (who encouraged the men to pursue support from
federal agencies)," Thurman recalls.
"With this level of activity,
one has to ask several questions," Thurman ponders. "How could a search
warrant be executed when there was no proof of wrongdoing -- in fact
there was proof from retired agents to support the legitimacy of IRP
Solutions and its executives? Why didn't the judge verify that there was
probable cause -- or do judges just sign off on warrants without asking
questions? Why was the company raided -- the company had debt, which is
not a crime? Why did the FBI claim IRP as a 'purported' software
development company when there was absolute proof to the contrary? Why
were there two grand juries? Why wasn't expert witness testimony
allowed? Why did the government change their theory from 'a purported
software development company,' to 'money laundering,' to 'scamming
staffing companies?'" These questions are only the tip of the iceberg
when you look at the IRP6 case and ponder 'How did this happen,' 'How
could this happen?'", asks Thurman.
"A Just Cause is seeking
justice in the case of the IRP6," asserts Banks. "This type of travesty
should not have occurred and that's why we are seeking the exoneration
of the IRP6. Additionally, we are asking the Department of Justice to
launch an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this case.
The investigation should probe into the actions by the FBI (Agent John
Smith), the U.S. Attorney's office (Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew
Kirsch) and the 10th Circuit (Judge Christine Arguello). This
case is filled with anomalies and if they go unchecked, it will
continue," Banks concludes.
For more information about the story of the IRP6 or for copies of the legal filings go to http://www.freetheirp6.org.
Related press releases: http://www.a-justcause.com/#!2015-press-releases/cl69

Welcome To My World

About Me

DARCY D= YOU MUST BELIEVE.STANDING UP FOR THE INNOCENT C.E.O
The United Kingdom resident champions causes of the voiceless, the powerless and the weak, particularly in North America. She campaigns for petitions on behalf of incarcerated human trafficking.